Posted on 11/15/2005 8:49:00 PM PST by atomicweeder
"How could any intelligent person who is under seige by the press and in fear of a White House investigation at the least forget that he had been talking to Fleischer and others just weeks before about how to deal with Wilson and his wife. If I had someone that scatter brained working for me, I would fire him. Also as I've said he had his telephone logs, his notes (where he attributes his knowledge to Cheney), and his emails that he or his lawyer could check. He had over a year in which to do this. Believe his sob story of poor memory if you like..."
Honestly, until the Woodward news came out, I really did think the whole "I forgot" defense was BS. Now I find it entirely possible that a man dealing with several reporters just forgot which one told him what. The timeline is what I find most important. Woodward's discussion was apparently before the discussion with Cheney. Furthermore, both Woodward's conversation and the Cheney discussions happened several weeks before the Wilson article was published. That suggests that there was no intent at retaliation -- rather just passing discussions. Woodward himself suggests he didn't think his initial discussion with the yet-unnamed source was sensitive. It sounds to me like Plame wasn't nearly as notable or top secret as she and her husband seems to think she was. It looks like Libby may very well have first learned about Plame from a reporter --- not Cheney. Maybe it really was just an honest mix-up as to who that reporter was. And, again, I really wasn't buying that excuse until I saw this op-ed piece.
Christoff article in which Wilson is prime source came out May 6. Wilson was going to a lot of reporters and spreading his lies between that time and when his NYT op ed appeared (I thought June 6). Maybe you can find it in the WSJ chronology I sent you by private mail. I dont think there was ever an intent at retailiation. But I do believe Libby lied. Check the chronology and see whether you think its conceivable that he could forget and then not correct his mismakes over the course of a year and a half the grand jury was in session.
What are you smoking?
Woodward's statements back up the Bush Administration's position that Wilson's wife's CIA connection was well known in the media rumor mill. More likely Woodward kept mum because he knew that his fellow reporters would turn their back on him if he admitted that they the media elite, not the White House were lying about the Plame leak.
If you don't believe me, just watch what happens in the DC media cabal.
If Fitzgerald doesn't drop the indictment against Libby, I bet the first judge that gets his hands on this case tosses it out.
Sounds like Woodward just might be Libby's get out of Jail free card, LOL i love it POS dems got nothing once again they bury themselves alive.
Thanks for the info. Actually, I was right.
Exactly how does this help. It only shows that a Bush administration official leaked the information even earlier than before. Doesnt say anything about the media rumour mill. Woodward didnt even tell his own editor. Given that, I find it hard to believe that he actually told Pincus about the time he said he did. Besides Pincus already knew because his story appeared in the Post before Woodward was told.
You should bear in mind that you know only one side of the story -- the prosecution's side. We have yet to hear the other side of this story about the charges against Libby. You seem to have skipped the entire process and have convicted him already.
Grin...
Except that in a good mystery novel the underlying crime would have to be a murder or something equally drastic. The underlying "crime" in this case -- who outted Ms. Plame -- doesn't appear to have been a crime at all.
You may believe it, but you only have one side of the story. Just because you may believe it, doesn't make it so. Yet your posts are absolutely dogmatic on the subject, as though no other explanation is possible other than your own.
Could it possibly be this administration official was not called to testify prior to the indictment? Yet after the Libby indictment, he came forward because he knew Libby was not the first to tell a journalist?
I'm familiar with the chronology set out by Fitzsimmons. All that is relevant at this point is when Woodward spoke to Libby. That was before the communication from Cheney to Libby, wasn't it?
Going back over my post #389 to you about okie01's two posts, I noticed that I had one of the post's numbers wrong.
I meant to referenced post #s 96 and 108, NOT post #s 84 and 108. Just wanted to correct that. And post #96 is where it mentions Woodward messing up Fitzgerald's timeline by his revelation. That's what made me think the conversation between him and Libby must have been earlier than when Libby and Cheney talked. My mistaken assumption.
However, the timeline is affected because Fitz in his presser would have us believe that Libby let out the info about Plame before it was generally known. Woodward says he KNEW earlier than the timeline (according to Fitz) says anyone knew. He says another Admin. official mentioned it to him. I'm not aware if Woodward deals with this, but I'm thinking he could have known before the admin. official told him. How do we know when he knew? Novak says it was generally known. Andrea Mitchell says it was widely known, then she denied that she meant to say that. Just like I thought, it was OUT THERE...VERY OUT THERE.
That is not what Fitz said. He implied that the ONLY reason he didn't charge Libby with being the leaker is that the law was too problematic given the facts that he could establish in this case. You could tell he was peddling that Libby was the original leaker. Now this would give Libby a motive for lying, would it not? I'll answer my own question. Yes it would. However, it was not true.
Libby has said he FIRST heard about this from a reporter, I believe he says Russert. Russert says not. If Russert is telling the truth, then is this a memory problem or lie? Well, Woodward and Pincus are telling different stories about the same thing. Hello? People can have confused memories without being liars.
Oh, I realize that Libby is accused of lying about more than the Russert thing. But I will not assume that this case is nearly as solid as Fitz made it sound, until I KNOW it to be so.
There is something WRONG with this case, I think. I could change my mind, but right now that's how it seems to me.
You mean like the people that say Libby is clearly innocent. There is no underlying crime. Everyone knew. He just has a bad memory although he forgets anything that could be politically embarrasing.
If what is in the indictment is true, then Libby deserves to be indicted at the very least for stupidity or arrogance.
Woodward spoke to Libby on June 23 and June 27. Cheney told Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on June 12. Libby had heard that from other government sources for several days before that.
Woodward's source didnt tell him until Mid June
If what is in the indictment is true, then I would say that Libby deserves to be convicted in a court of law. However, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and at the moment all of us in the general public only have one side of the story in the indictment. An indictment is not a conviction, nor even a certitude in a case such as this that a crime has been committed.
The prosecution has the burden of proof. If you wish to take the prosecution's side of this case, that is your privilege, just as those who wish to take the defense side are free to do so.
I was commenting on your absolute, dogmatic stance that Libby is guilty -- and arrogant, and stupid -- based solely on the indictment. He may be, but again, we haven't heard from the defense yet. You give the impression that your mind is already closed to any exculpatory information.
Oh, in that case I don't know what the Times is babbling about.
This is the same Bob Woodward who has a pattern of unearthing groundbreaking interviews with people shortly after they die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.